4um: GREAT VICTORY OVER IRS - Tom Cryer - The prosecution could not state any law making the average American liable for the income tax

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: GREAT VICTORY OVER IRS - Tom Cryer - The prosecution could not state any law making the average American liable for the income tax
Source: Liberty Post
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=193689
Published: Jul 12, 2007
Author: D Wornock
Post Date: 2007-07-12 00:17:47 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: Abolish, The, IRS
Views: 11252
Comments: 62

Today at about 5:30 PM Attorney Tom Cryer was found not guilty to all charges of willful failure to file by the jury in Federal District Court, Shreveport LA. I attended the 2-1/2 day trial. The judge assisted the prosecution in every way possible, and the prosecution lied claiming there is a law requiring most Americans to file. However, the jury saw through the lies and believed Tom Cryer.

The prosecution could not state any law making the average American liable for the income tax. All the prosecution could point out was rulings by two lower courts. However, as Tom Cryer stated The lower courts cannot overturn the Supreme Court and Tom Cryer stated numerous Supreme Court Ruling that conflicted with the IRS version of the law.

The Brilliant Tom Cryer:

Cryer’s strategy is to have the indictment dismissed on the merits of his constitutional and statutory arguments. He has filed an approximately 100-page motion that can be described in one word – “brilliant.”

UPDATES

How to Keep 100% of Your Earnings

America: From Freedom To Fascism
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#4. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
Now we can all stop paying our income taxes. Great! Spread the word!

RickyJ posted on 2007-07-12 1:17:27 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#5. To: RickyJ (#4)
Now we can all stop paying our income taxes. Great! Spread the word!

LOL! Little late for me.... I stopped 30 years ago!

richard9151 posted on 2007-07-12 1:36:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#7. To: richard9151 (#5)
The Lie-Free Zone

Click HERE to read this free copy of the 104 page memorandum Mr. Cryer filed explaining the law and the reasons the Constitution makes your paycheck exempt.

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 1:51:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#9. To: christine (#7)
Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government
President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control A Report to The President (Reagan)
January 15, 1984. Available from the Congressional Research Service. The excerpt below can be found on page 12.

"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets.

If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.

In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 2:26:58 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#10. To: All (#9)
COST OF GOVERNMENT DAY REPORT
"the cost of government consumes 52.6 percent of national income"
Note: Table of Contents

Source

Free At Last

The American Spectator
By By Doug Bandow
Published 7/11/2007 12:07:58 AM

Today the average American finally pays off the burden of government. It only took 192 days. According to a new report from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), government effectively consumes 52.6 percent of national income.
Unfortunately, the Bush years have not been good ones for Americans tired of turning so much of their incomes over to government. Despite the Bush tax cuts, people are working several days longer for federal, state, and local governments now than in 2000, when George W. Bush was elected president. Cost of Government Day (COGD) rose two days from 2006 alone.
There have been tiny declines along the way, from 2003 to 2004 and 2005 to 2006. But, notes study author Elizabeth Karasmeighan, "the drop in the cost of government was short lived."
The problem is largely one of spending. Writes Karasmeighan: "The average American worker will have to work an additional 6 days out of the year over 2000 to pay for government spending on all levels. Federal spending continues to be the main driver of the Cost of Government index, adding 6 days on to the days Americans were forced to work for federal government spending in 2000." From 2006 to 2007 federal spending upped the financial burden on taxpayers by a half day.
Sadly, the years of Republican governance have erased much of the gain from nearly a decade of divided government between President Bill Clinton and the GOP Congress. Karasmeighan explains:

The elevated levels [of] federal spending over the past seven years have wiped out 37 percent of the unprecedented reduction in the burden of federal spending as a percentage of national income from 1993-2000. Federal spending (as a percentage of income) declined for eight straight years, which reduced government spending from one out of every four dollars of national income to one out of every five dollars. By 2000, average Americans worked 14.3 days less of the year to pay off their federal spending burden than in 1992. In just the past six years, however, 37 percent of that gain has been eliminated.
Outlandish outlays, not tax cuts, are responsible for today's deficits. Karasmeighan points out that 70 percent of the cumulative deficit since 2002 resulted because spending rose more quickly than national income. A simple "spend only what you can afford to pay policy" would have largely eliminated the deficit.
The future looks even uglier. The 78 million baby-boomers begin to retire next year, and will ultimately generate a financial tsunami through Social Security and Medicare. With Congress lacking the slightest political backbone, so necessary to tackle entitlement reform, the U.S. will have to find a way to cover tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities under even the most favorable economic circumstances.
State and local spending accounts for another 1.6 days of the COGD increase from 2000 to 2007. This year the average American will work nearly 46 days to fund state and local governments. Moreover, the future likely will be worse. Reports ATR: "Even with looming unfunded pension and health care liabilities, states are failing to reform their entitlement programs. On the contrary, many states used their 2007 sessions to discuss expanding health care programs and imposing health insurance mandates."
The regulatory burden also is growing, despite roughly six years of a supposedly free market Republican president and Congress acting in tandem. Reports ATR:

The cost of regulation as a percent of national income remains at 16.9 percent for the fourth year. It is important to note, however, that revised data on regulatory costs reveal that COGD reports prior to 2006 were underestimating the cost of regulations. New regulations imposed following the War on Terrorism and corporate scandals significantly increased the regulatory burden in 2001 and 2002 in particular. Concurrently, the cost of tax compliance continues to grow. In 2007, the average American will work 61.8 days to pay for the regulatory costs, nearly 1 full day more than was required in 2006.
It is important to note that these estimates include only compliance costs. Equally significant, but more difficult to estimate, are the economic disruptions result from regulation.
Writes Karasmeighan: "These hidden costs slow the economy, as they introduce inefficiencies and distortions, and reduce the economic reward left over for productive activity." Slower economic growth means lower production, smaller wages, and fewer jobs. By some estimates the efficiency losses of regulation run as much as $1.5 trillion, rivaling or exceeding compliance costs.
The regulatory burden, too, is likely to continue going up. Since regulatory costs are less visible, people tend to be less aware of the threat of increased regulation and less able to mobilize against new regulatory proposals. ATR warns that "with the combination of the Democrat Congress and lobbying by the new constituencies created by recent regulations, the upward trend of regulations will continue in future years.

IN FACT, THE COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE has issued its own comprehensive report on federal regulation, authored by Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr. The scope and sweep of government, and especially federal, controls are enormous.
According to economist Mark Crain, regulatory compliance costs ran $1.142 trillion last year. By way of comparison, Crews points out that this number exceeds total income tax collections and accounts for about nine percent of GDP. But that's not the end: "The Weidenbaum Center and the Mercatus Center jointly estimate that agencies spent $41 billion to administer and police the regulatory state in 2006," writes Crews.
There are a number of ways to measure the regulatory state. For instance, the Federal Register contained 74,937 pages last year, a 1.4 percent increase (though still below the number in 2004). Although the number of pages was up, the number of final rules fell six percent, to 3,718. Notes Crews: "Well over 48,000 final rules were issued from 1995 to 2006 -- that is, during Republican control of Congress."
More than 4,000 rules are currently in the federal pipeline, 139 of which are considered to be "economically significant," that is, likely to have an economic impact of at least $100 million. That number is up slightly from 2005.
Five agencies account for almost half of all regulations: Treasury Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture Department, Interior Department, and Commerce Department. The issues run the gamut: substances prohibited for use in animal feed and food; country-of-origin labels for food; nondiscrimination in public facilities; occupational exposure to diseases and substances; automobile fuel economy standards; energy efficiency rules; emission standards; satellite broadcasting signal carriage requirements; home safety rules; furniture flammability standards; and many, many more.
The problem is not that all regulations are unnecessary or badly designed or unduly costly. The problem is that we have trouble assessing the relative merits of various regulations, and, more important, policymakers usually have no interest in such assessments even if they exist. Observes Crews:

We simply do not know whether regulatory benefits exceed costs. But agencies are not the real culprits. Congress regularly shirks its constitutional duty tomake the tough calls. It delegates considerable law- making power to agencies, and then it fails to ensure that they deliver benefits that are greater than costs. Thus, agencies can hardly be faulted for not guaranteeing optimal regulation or for not ensuring that only "good" rules get through.
Since legislators are no more likely tomorrow than today to find the courage necessary to fulfill their constitutional duty to constrain agency rule-making, regulatory costs seem destined to continue rising. Crews calls for "making Congress as accountable for regulation as for legislation." It's a great idea. But Congress is as likely to accept regulatory responsibility as Congress is likely to eliminate the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing, and Transportation, the sources of so many unnecessary and expensive boondoggles. Or to eliminate the income tax, while cutting expenditures accordingly.
If there is any good news, it is that some states are better than others. In Alabama and Oklahoma taxpayers finished paying for government on June 22. Residents of Alaska and Mississippi quit paying on June 23. Seven more states finished in June
Unfortunately, people in sixteen states, along with the District of Columbia, will continue paying for days, or weeks, later. Connecticut sets the record: August 2. New York trails at July 28. New Jersey follows on July 22. Of Connecticut, Karasmeighan explains, the burden "is so onerous both because it has very high relative incomes, getting a big hit from the federal income tax, and because it has high state and local taxes."
The mantra from the left continues to be that Americans are undertaxed; the public sector is starved of funds; there is no problem that a new government program cannot solve. But the numbers prove otherwise. Today government spending and regulation take more than half of our national income. That's a far heavier burden than a free people should ever accept.

Doug Bandow is Vice President for Policy of Citizen Outreach. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press).

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 2:43:45 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#11. To: christine (#10)
Some Patriot Photos

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 2:50:40 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#15. To: Uncle Bill, christine, Zipporah, Jethro Tull, Lodwick (#11)
Some Patriot Photos

I've met Godfrey Lehman, Irwin Schiff and Red Beckman in person, and I've spoken with attorney Larry Becraft on the phone.
Lehman (who is from San Francisco) once told a story to a group of us about his experience on jury duty. It was his position that one should not have to forfeit one right (privacy) in order to exercise another (serving on a jury) so, when an attorney asked him a question he replied with "I object, that question is a violation of my right to privacy".
The judge said "YOU GET OUT OF MY COURTROOM!"
Lehman was shocked by the judge's reaction. And, he makes a most convincing argument that voir dire is unconstitutional, and that lawyers are controlling juries to an extent never intended by the founders.
For instance, why does knowing a defendant render one unsuitable for jury duty? When the first Europeans landed in Plymouth and Jamestown, could they not hold trials because everyone knew everyone else?
No, the reason why lawyers don't want us to know a defendant is so they can paint a false picture of their clients, and if you know the defendants' character it would be much harder to fool you.
Irwin Schiff called me twice collect from prison at my request and expense years ago, too. I didn't have any tax problems, I just wanted to chat and tell him how much he helped me!
And, Red Beckman told me how he and Bill Benson researched the 16th amendment and proved it was never ratified. He said that when he provided the evidence to the 9th circuit, the judge said "This is a political matter on which we cannot rule!" and he ordered the steno not to make a transcript of the hearing!
The govt knows that it's a swindle, folks, believe me.

HOUNDDAWG posted on 2007-07-12 4:09:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG, christine (#15)
Just tell the IRS your income is a capital gain. I'm sure they'll understand.

http://www.ombwatch.org / article/articleview/3898/
Wall Street Tax Break Comes under Scrutiny

After decades of flying below the radar screen, a tax policy allowing private equity fund managers to claim their fee-based income as capital gains rather than ordinary income has suddenly become the subject of media scrutiny, congressional hearings and legislation. In June, the Blackstone Group, a large private equity firm, went public with an initial public offering, which resulted in billion-dollar profits for the principals. This triggered House Ways & Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee chairs Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) to question the tax breaks that helped enable the billion-dollar profits. They announced their intention to examine tax policy regarding so-called "carried interest," a type of performance fee that is a major source of compensation for fund managers. Rep. Sander Levin (D- MI) has introduced a bill to eliminate the carried interest tax loophole altogether. In response, high-powered lobbyists have gathered to fight back. A classic confrontation between industry and taxpayer interests may be looming.
The policy question concerns part of the fee that fund managers usually collect for their services. They typically negotiate a percentage of any profits on their fund's investments, called "carried interest" because, oftentimes, funds do not produce profits for several years. Because the income comes, when it does, following the sale of the fund's security assets, the argument is made that this income is like dividends or capital gains and so should be taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent.
However, some tax experts have argued that carried interest is no different from ordinary income, which is taxed at rates of up to 35 percent. The risk element in fund managers' compensation for services is quite different from investors' risk. The latter may lose every penny they have invested in the funds; they may also reap capital gains if fund assets are sold at a profit. Fund managers may not be personally invested in the funds they manage at all — in this case, they have no "downside" risk of financial loss; they may simply fail to be due compensation if the fund does not perform well enough. It is a form of contingency fee.
Advocates of current policy, such as Lisa McGreevy, executive vice president of the Managed Funds Association, say that ''the whole issue is fundamental to entrepreneurship in the United States and the ability to use sweat equity to build long-term investments.'' Victor Fleischer, a University of Illinois tax professor, believes that perhaps private equity funds, hedge funds and others benefiting from the tax treatment have total assets under management of up to $1 trillion. It is unclear whether taxes on fund managers relate at all to investor activity.
Advocates of closing the carried interest tax loophole question the equity of current policy, which, Fleischer estimates, reduces fund managers' taxes by $4- 6 billion a year. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) says that ''there is absolutely no reason some of the richest partnerships in the world should be able to rip off American taxpayers because of a tax loophole.'' On the other side, the lobbyists are trying to convince Congress that such legislation would hurt the average citizen. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) was quoted in the July 10 Washington Post as saying, "This is a tax increase not only on those working on Wall Street, but also on all blue-jean-wearing Americans because of its effect on their retirement funds."

A key moment in the debate came on June 12, when former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, speaking to a tax reform conference run by Brookings' Hamilton Project said,
It seems to me what is happening is people are performing a service, managing people's money in a private equity form and fees for that service would ordinarily be thought of as ordinary income. A week and a half later, Levin introduced his bill to end the tax treatment of these fees as capital gains. A dozen other House members have now co-sponsored the bill, including Rangel and House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank (D-MA). Rangel subsequently announced that he would hold a hearing on the legislation in July. Baucus has scheduled the first of two hearings by the Senate Finance Committee, to be held July 11.
The prospects for the Levin legislation in the House seem favorable, given the heft of those who have endorsed it. However, the Cantor-led forces include some of the most powerful lobbyists in town. In the Senate, Baucus and Finance Committee ranking member Charles Grassley (R-IA) have not taken a position on the issue. But in his most direct statement on it to date, Grassley, who has strongly supported tax breaks for business in the past, implied that the carried interest tax preference is
failing to maintain the integrity of the 15% capital-gains rate… What I'm doing is an effort to ward off the demagogues on Capitol Hill that can say this is just a way for the rich to get richer, and the middle class to be stung... I would ask my Republican colleagues to look at it from that standpoint, that we want to make sure we aren't feeding the demagoguery of class warfare that the other party is always getting blue ribbons for doing. Whatever Congress decides, it is possible that President Bush will declare that ending this tax loophole is a tax increase and veto it on those grounds.

Say what?

Uncle Bill posted on 2007-07-12 5:44:47 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 17.
#18. To: Uncle Bill (#17)
... it is possible that President Bush will declare that ending this tax loophole is a tax increase and veto it on those grounds.

Quite possible, since Bush wants to free all investment capital and corporate profits from taxation and make it a wage withholding tax only!
Do you believe this guy?
This move would do the exact opposite of what was promised during debates about the tax.
And, this is also why corporations are all too happy to withhold from their employees' wages. The company pays little or no taxes and they compensate with money from their workers.

HOUNDDAWG posted on 2007-07-12 05:53:52 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um